| Author | Message | ||
     Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17526 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
founders ki raaledu .. PVNR govt chesindi aa law .. Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind  | ||
| Simba Comedian Username: Simba Post Number: 1680 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 166.137.137.182 Rating: N/A |
Veedi edupu chooste jaalestundi http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/oct/01/column-ten-reasons -why-india-cannot-move-on.htm | ||
| Sanman Junior Artist Username: Sanman Post Number: 200 Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 71.199.91.151 Rating: N/A |
idhi mana founders lo a dikku malina vaniki vachhina alochana | ||
| Sanman Junior Artist Username: Sanman Post Number: 199 Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 71.199.91.151 Rating: N/A |
wish he responds quicker next time | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5059 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 192.127.94.7 Rating: N/A |
he knows what to do and when and how to intervene....he doesn't need to fit into our limited sense of right and wrong | ||
| Sanman Junior Artist Username: Sanman Post Number: 198 Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 71.199.91.151 Rating: N/A |
vaela koddi gullani kulagotti lakshala koddi bhaktulani oochakotha kosthu unte lord mahakala(Time) em chestunnaadu | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5057 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 192.127.94.7 Rating: N/A |
Those who are constitutional& Law fundemantalists should go through this article...it's a puzzling case....it also shows how Lord in the form of mahakala(Time) can transcend the limitations of law also and use it to his advantage in a secular fundamentalist society like us....just like Lord narsimha killed Hiranyakashyapu without violating boons granted to him http://www.dailypioneer.com/287090/Ram-Mandir-redeemed.html Ram Mandir redeemed October 02, 2010 1:33:31 AM Ashok Malik The BJP must seize the moment, bury Ayodhya as a political issue and emerge as a broad-spectrum political entity Socially acceptable, politically convenient and legally innovative if not unorthodox: That is about the best description of the judgement by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. At one level, it does seem odd that in settling a title the three judges have in fact created a new title. Yet, if the judges had the relative freedom to do this it was also because of both the singularity and the uniqueness of the case. Why was the Ayodhya case singular? When he delivers a judgement, a judge is conscious he is setting a precedent. He may be triggering the process of what is called case law, which could determine future judgements in subsequent, unrelated cases. There was no such burden on the three judges of the Allahabad High Court. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 prohibits any change in the âreligious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947â. The only exception it makes is for the Ayodhya site, which was already the subject of a court case when the law was enacted. As such, and despite the fear-mongering and doomsday scenarios of professional secular fundamentalists, there is no danger of the Ayodhya judgement being used to change the ownership or denominational identity of any other religious structure, be it in Varanasi or Mathura or elsewhere. The judges were conscious of this. They realised they were opening no floodgates and setting off no wave of me-too litigation. They knew this was a one-off, that the Ayodhya verdict represented a once and forever challenge. This allowed them to tweak the boundaries of jurisprudence. Every petition before any Indian court seeks a specific action that the petitioner considers just. It also ends with a request that the judge(s) grant this âor any other relief that the court deems fitâ. On Thursday, the Allahabad High Court took that innocuous phrase at face value. Why was the Ayodhya case unique? To view this as a straightforward property quarrel would be to deliberately ignore its complexity and undermine the finesse and sensitivity that the judges have shown. The Archaeological Survey of India report established that a Hindu religious structure, possibly dating back to the 10th or 11th century, existed below the site. It was also clear that a functional mosque stood there from at least 1528 till the first half of the 20th century. Hindu worship at the location had continued for a significant though only estimable portion of at least the past two centuries, first at a platform (chabutra) outside the mosque proper, then, from December 1949, inside the mosque structure and finally, from December 1992, at the former site of the mosque. These were verities the judges couldnât ignore, at least not in a case with such wider ramifications, where victory had to seen to be both legal and moral. When it came to establishing the title, the Sunni Wakf Board could not prove a history of ownership and transfer of the land to it by private munificence or royal/state decree. Similarly, the Nirmohi Akhada â a sect that sees itself as the custodian of the Hindu shrine that it says has existed at the site and does not surrender this right to the deity of Ram, which is a legal entity as per Indian law â had a claim based on tradition more than on property documents. Finally, there was the issue of the statute of limitations. Today, an aggrieved party can reclaim his property from a trespasser within a period of 12 years. Beyond that the trespasser becomes the owner of the title. The Nirmohi Akhada had lost the site in at least 1528. It had claimed redress 400 years later. Its suit was therefore time-barred. The Sunni Wakf Board had lost the site in 1949 and filed a petition in 1961 to claim it back. It appears that the statute of limitations at the time of the placing of idols in the mosque extended to six years. Hence the judges ruled the Wakf Board suit was also time-barred. Who now owned the property? Strictly speaking, the title may have devolved on the deity of Ramlalla, which had been resident at the location since at least December 22-23, 1949. This probably explains why the judges have ruled that the idols must not be moved from the site of the former sanctum sanctorum, the 60 feet by 40 feet area that is the inner core of the Ayodhya struggle. However, the Ramlalla idol (and his legal personification) was also the most recent arrival to the location and the dispute, the case in his name being filed only in 1989. The Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhada had claims of a religious and social engagement with the site prior to 1989, though not a clear title. This was not so much a case as a conundrum. What happens next? Presuming the verdict is accepted and there is no appeal or even if the Supreme Court upholds the judgement, there will be some give and take. The Nirmohi Akhada has been allotted the Sita ki Rasoi shrine and the Ram chabutra (platform) location. These are not contiguous. It may have to exchange small patches of land with the trust set up in the name of the Ramlalla deity. This will facilitate the construction of a proper temple. The Wakf Board must be free to use its one-third share as it wishes. If it wants to build a mosque that more or less adjoins the Ram temple, then it would be just and fair that the Hindu community support and facilitate this. It has redeemed its cherished temple, and must follow this up with not triumphalism but magnanimity. For the BJP, the judgement offers post facto legitimacy to the Ram Janmabhoomi movement of 20 years ago but also an opportunity to put the ghosts of Ayodhya to rest. If a temple and a mosque are built in close proximity â and if the party expressly backs such an idea â Ayodhya will be buried as a political matter. The so-called âthree contentious issuesâ â the Uniform Civil Code and the status of Jammu & Kashmir being the other two â will be down to two contentious issues. It will liberate the BJP from the charges of being a denominational party, rather than a broad-spectrum political entity, and enhance its middle ground, middle India positioning. It needs to seize the moment. |
